A company that would be worth caring about would also care about its employees. Companies that actually care about its employees exist, but they’re mostly pretty small. You might care about a company, but the company often sees you as a replaceable part and they’ll throw you to the curb if it suits them.
Yeah, no. The only people who care about the company are the execs who own enough stock to care and green newbies who haven't been burned yet by companies who do not care about them at all.
There used to be pensions - those people still cared deeply about the company after they left.
Nobody has pensions anymore, and as long as your 401k is in an index you don’t care if the building collapses after you walk out the door.
It’s been interesting to watch this dynamic in defense. There’s a lot of weird niche shit that’s absolutely critical and takes a really long time (and the right environment!) to become an expert in, but the turnover rate now is crazy. There’s an “old guard” (that has a pension) that kinda keep things running, but a LOT of them are retiring about now.
I would say your position is the cynical one. Encouraging the people who don't tie their identity to their workplace to leave so that you are only left with the ones who "care" is manipulative. It reminds me of the time I went to a real estate scam seminar. At the halfway mark, they encouraged everyone who wasn't ready to sign a check on the spot not to come back from intermission.
This concept of "caring" is just a new coat of paint on "we're not just a workplace, we're a family," a strategy to get your employees to volunteer for more responsibility in exchange for kudos (rather than the pay or title they would demand if asked directly).
There's nothing cynical about my position. It's better to be naive and go from one corporate family to another with a caring attitude, attempting to make a difference, committing to hard work, and having your heart broken, than becoming a sorry bastard like you guys.
You don't need to "volunteer" anything, or do unpaid labour—to care. All this attitude of "the world/company/country owes me big-time" is poisoning your soul, man.
You might be surprised to hear I actually do care deeply about my work and my colleagues, and have spent many a late night firefighting in production, shown up when it wasn't necessarily expected, et cetera.
It's not about entitlement, is about healthy boundaries around working life. There is no virtue in burning yourself out. Your manager who tells you that you're "part of the family" is not being honest with you. When your interests and your employer's interests diverge, it will turn out that it was just a workplace, after all.
Nothing in any of my messages indicates that I'm condoning "burnout", or any other things that you choose to draw lines in the sand around. And yet, you keep lecturing me on values of work-life balance. I care, some of my coworkers do, too. We all know who doesn't.
> Nothing in any of my messages indicates that I'm condoning "burnout"
Actually you literally advocate for burning yourself out, you just use slightly different terminology.
> It's better to be naive and go from one corporate family to another with a caring attitude, attempting to make a difference, committing to hard work, and having your heart broken, ...
Burnout is the cumulative effect of "having your heart broken" over and over again. It's better to make a commitment you can sustain than to work yourself to the bone. It's not cynical to recognize that your employer will not return the favor.
> [Y]ou keep lecturing me...
Respectfully, you can't call me a "sorry bastard" who's "soul is being poisoned," joke about getting the sibling commenter fired for disagreeing with you, and then complain that I am the one being patronizing.
I was being sincere when I encouraged you to ask your coworkers what they thought. I think we're talking past each other and that you're filtering what I'm saying through a combative lens. I think if you heard it from someone you respected, it would make more sense.
I'll add, I do see the sibling commenter was being rude and that I wasn't sticking up for you, and I have experienced that myself and understand it's not easy to disentangle those conversations and see that I wasn't calling you childish or condoning it. It's not acceptable, and they shouldn't have done that. I could've said something in your defense, but I didn't, because I felt you had bent the conversation in that direction with your "trembling" comment. But two wrongs don't make a right and I should've said so. My apologies.
I didn't call him childish. I told him to stop being childish. Can you really argue his "how cynical! I'm trembling." reply isn't being childish?
Then he responded with an absurd response about how he should get me fired and I said he sounds like a child. Again, not a personal attack but a characterization of his tone. Which I don't see how anyone could take issue with. I'm being far more civil than him.
He gave me nothing substantial to respond to. All i can do is ask him to stop behaving like a child.
There's no daylight between this and calling them childish. But I fully acknowledge they were also at fault, particularly the thing about getting you fired, and the reason I didn't make any defense of or apology to you is that it didn't seem to be getting under your skin.
I would say that response fails to demonstrate maturity, and wasn't an appropriate response to your question. You don't have to take the bait. Two wrongs don't make a right, you shouldn't respond to a bad comment with another bad comment, etc.
If someone isn't giving you something substantial to respond to, you can choose not to respond rather than responding inappropriately.
Disagree with you 100%. "You sound like" is specifically addressing what he is saying, not calling him names. I think you are being completely unfair to me.
Feel free to ask a friend you trust to be honest with you whether I was unfair, and whether there's a material difference between saying someone is childish and saying they "sound like a child," telling them "don't be childish," and saying they "behave like a child."
I think we should take the time to get in touch with your employer, and let them know that you DON'T GIVE A FUCK, & some more about how "caring" is for <s>pussies</s>, or should I say greens/grifting executives.
You did come after me. The point is he is saying nothing of substance and behaving like a child. I called him out on it and you give me crap for that. You're being absurd.
I reminded you that you shouldn't be rude. You don't need to be rude to get your point across. I was arguing in favor of the same perspective, I was insulted by the same person, but I managed it. Frankly I find it absurd for you to say this person is "behaving like a child" and then, when challenged on your behavior, to turn around and say "they started it."
I don't think there's more to say; have a good day.
You realize lame responses like this are functionally an admission that your point was baseless right? When you resort to silly responses like "I'm trembling", anyone with half a brain reading that knows you have no rational response so you're falling back on playground taunting.
Lifers tend to not take risks and be average, but not top performers. Good "workhorses" as they say, but rarely the people who brings in the most innovation.
